The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Age wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 7:51 am
P1. ALL-THERE-IS is the Universe, Itself.
P2. If some thing exists, then
C. The Universe exists.

Now, we are back to my original two questions to you here;
Is there any thing that you are 100% certain about that you KNOW, for sure, exists?

If no, then so be it.
100% certainty doesn't solve anything.

For the sake of demonstration lets say that I am 100% certain the apple on my desk exists.

Then I induce that something MORE than the apple exists. Lets call it.
The... Earth!

But if the Earth exists. Then I can further induce that something MORE than Earth exists. Lets call it...
The... Solar system.

But if the Solar system exists... Then I can further induce that something MORE than the Solar system exists. Lets call it...
The...Galaxy!

But if the Galaxy exists. Then I can further induce that something MORE than the Galaxy exists. Lets call it...
The... Universe!

But if the Universe exists. Then I can further induce that something MORE than the Universe exists. Lets call it...
The... Multiverse!

But if the Multiverse exists. Then I can further induce that something MORE than the Multiverse exists. lets call it...
The ...Multimultiverse.

But if the Multimultiverse exists. Then I can further induce that something MORE than the Multiverse exists. lets call it...
God!

Like Anselm did. But why stop there?

If God exists. Then i can further induce that something MORE than God exists. Lets call it...
GodGod!

So it is clear to me that if we are going to be using induction then saying 'ALL-THERE-IS is the universe' is completely unjustified.
ALL-THERE-IS is GodGod is a premise with equivalent truth-value.

And we can go on saying "ALL-THERE-IS Is GodGod" and GodGodGod. And GodGodGodGod.

So you need to explain to all and sundry why you have CHOSEN to draw a line at 'the universe'. Perhaps you have run out of imagination?

After all the notion of "induction" comes from Mathematics. And the principle goes roughly as follows.

* Assume that a proposition is true for N=K.
* Prove the proposition is true for N=K+1 also.

Then the proposition N is true for all values of K.
But what if K = ∞? Then the proposition is also true for ∞ + 1 !
Mathematicians solved this problem by simply saying: ∞ + ∞ = ∞

And then we can have a debate on whether ALL-THERE-IS is infinite or finite.

But apparently Mathematics doesn't matter, so I guess Age is out of this discussion.
Last edited by Logik on Sun Jan 20, 2019 8:59 am, edited 2 times in total.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

ALL-THERE-IS is ALL-THERE-IS.

What label you assign to ALL-THERE-IS is up to you.

You can call it The Universe. Or God. Or Multiverse. Or My Precious.

Whatever label you give it, you still can't tell me if ALL-THERE-IS is infinite or finite.

So you know nothing about it. Knowing the names of things is not knowledge.

Age
Posts: 4707
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 8:23 am
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 7:51 am
P1. ALL-THERE-IS is the Universe, Itself.
P2. If some thing exists, then
C. The Universe exists.

Now, we are back to my original two questions to you here;
Is there any thing that you are 100% certain about that you KNOW, for sure, exists?

If no, then so be it.
100% certainty doesn't solve anything.

For the sake of demonstration lets say that I am 100% certain the apple on my desk exists.

Then I induce that something MORE than the apple exists. Lets call it.
The... Earth!

But if the Earth exists. Then I can further induce that something MORE than Earth exists. Lets call it...
The... Solar system.

But if the Solar system exists... Then I can further induce that something MORE than the Solar system exists. Lets call it...
The...Galaxy!

But if the Galaxy exists. Then I can further induce that something MORE than the Galaxy exists. Lets call it...
The... Universe!

But if the Universe exists. Then I can further induce that something MORE than the Universe exists. Lets call it...
The... Multiverse!

But if the Multiverse exists. Then I can further induce that something MORE than the Multiverse exists. lets call it...
The ...Multimultiverse.

But if the Multimultiverse exists. Then I can further induce that something MORE than the Multiverse exists. lets call it...
God!

Like Anselm did. But why stop there?

If God exists. Then i can further induce that something MORE than God exists. Lets call it...
GodGod!

So it is clear to me that if we are going to be using induction then saying 'ALL-THERE-IS is the universe' is completely unjustified.
ALL-THERE-IS is GodGod is a premise with equivalent truth-value.

And we can go on saying "ALL-THERE-IS Is GodGod" and GodGodGod. And GodGodGodGod.

So you need to explain to all and sundry why you have CHOSEN to draw a line at 'the universe'. Perhaps you have run out of imagination?

After all the notion of "induction" comes from Mathematics. And the principle goes roughly as follows.

* Assume that a proposition is true for N=K.
* Prove the proposition is true for N=K+1 also.

Then the proposition N is true for all values of K.
But what if K = ∞? Then the proposition is also true for ∞ + 1 !
Mathematicians solved this problem by simply saying: ∞ + ∞ = ∞

And then we can have a debate on whether ALL-THERE-IS is infinite or finite.

But apparently Mathematics doesn't matter, so I guess Age is out of this discussion.
You have completely missed the mark.

What you are saying here has NOTHING at all to do with the questions I asked you, which you have FAILED to answer.

By the way, what you are saying here is COMPLETELY OFF TRACK, from what I have been talking about also.

Age
Posts: 4707
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 8:48 am
ALL-THERE-IS is ALL-THERE-IS.

What label you assign to ALL-THERE-IS is up to you.

You can call it The Universe. Or God. Or Multiverse. Or My Precious.

Whatever label you give it, you still can't tell me if ALL-THERE-IS is infinite or finite.

So you know nothing about it. Knowing the names of things is not knowledge.

What you are saying here has NOTHING at all to do with the challenge that YOU started. You are so far off track that I wonder how you could have even drifted in this direction let alone this far off.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Age wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 11:01 am
Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 8:48 am
ALL-THERE-IS is ALL-THERE-IS.

What label you assign to ALL-THERE-IS is up to you.

You can call it The Universe. Or God. Or Multiverse. Or My Precious.

Whatever label you give it, you still can't tell me if ALL-THERE-IS is infinite or finite.

So you know nothing about it. Knowing the names of things is not knowledge.

What you are saying here has NOTHING at all to do with the challenge that YOU started. You are so far off track that I wonder how you could have even drifted in this direction let alone this far off.
*yawn*

Yes. I have 100% certain beliefs.

I am 100% certain that ALL-THAT-EXISTS. ACTUALLY EXISTS. WITH 100% certainty.

Too bad you don't understand Mathematics or information theory. So you don't understand why the above sentence says nothing whatsoever.

ALL THAT EXISTS - EXISTS. I am 100% certain of this!

What I am not certain is whether 'the universe' is one of those things that exist.

Is "The Universe' one of ALL the things that exist?

This is a yes/no question.

Age
Posts: 4707
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 11:03 am
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 11:01 am
Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 8:48 am
ALL-THERE-IS is ALL-THERE-IS.

What label you assign to ALL-THERE-IS is up to you.

You can call it The Universe. Or God. Or Multiverse. Or My Precious.

Whatever label you give it, you still can't tell me if ALL-THERE-IS is infinite or finite.

So you know nothing about it. Knowing the names of things is not knowledge.

What you are saying here has NOTHING at all to do with the challenge that YOU started. You are so far off track that I wonder how you could have even drifted in this direction let alone this far off.
*yawn*

Yes. I have 100% certain beliefs.

I am 100% certain that ALL-THAT-EXISTS. ACTUALLY EXISTS. WITH 100% certainty.

Too bad you don't understand Mathematics or information theory. So you don't understand why the above sentence says nothing whatsoever.

ALL THAT EXISTS - EXISTS.

Is the 'universe' one of those things that exist?

This is a yes/no question.
Of course what YOU have said here says nothing whatsoever. Besides the fact that we both agree on this, and what have you said here says nothing whatsoever is very obvious, you have STILL FAILED to answer my question/s here. Instead you answered some completely unrelated question, that you, yourself, must of asked. You are, once again, only answering your own assumptions and/or questions.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Age wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 11:27 am
Of course what YOU have said here says nothing whatsoever. Besides the fact that we both agree on this, and what have you said here says nothing whatsoever is very obvious, you have STILL FAILED to answer my question/s here. Instead you answered some completely unrelated question, that you, yourself, must of asked. You are, once again, only answering your own assumptions and/or questions.
Is there any thing that you are 100% certain about that you KNOW, for sure, exists?
I said Yes!

I am 100% certain that ALL-THAT-EXISTS. ACTUALLY EXISTS. WITH 100% certainty.

P1. If ALL-THAT-EXISTS ACTUALLY exists then any thing exists
P2. All that exists ACTUALLY exists.
C. Any thing exists.

If the argument is valid and sound then the conclusion is true.

So, back to that which you call "The Universe'.

Is that which you call "The Universe" a thing?

If it's a thing then it exists.
If it's not a thing then it doesn't exist.

Age
Posts: 4707
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:54 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 11:27 am
Of course what YOU have said here says nothing whatsoever. Besides the fact that we both agree on this, and what have you said here says nothing whatsoever is very obvious, you have STILL FAILED to answer my question/s here. Instead you answered some completely unrelated question, that you, yourself, must of asked. You are, once again, only answering your own assumptions and/or questions.
Is there any thing that you are 100% certain about that you KNOW, for sure, exists?
I said Yes!

I am 100% certain that ALL-THAT-EXISTS. ACTUALLY EXISTS. WITH 100% certainty.
What are those things, which YOU are 100% certain about, that exist?

P1. If ALL-THAT-EXISTS ACTUALLY exists then any thing exists
P2. All that exists ACTUALLY exists.
C. Any thing exists.

But this also, as I said before, says nothing whatsoever, especially as I see this is an invalid and unsound argument.
Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:54 pm
If the argument is valid and sound then the conclusion is true.
Well we do NOT have to worry about that. To me the argument is neither sound nor valid.
Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:54 pm
So, back to that which you call "The Universe'.

Is that which you call "The Universe" a thing?

If it's a thing then it exists.
If it's not a thing then it doesn't exist.
All moot because as you said, and I agree with you, you are saying nothing whatsoever here.

Now, back to the start: Could any thing existing provide, to you, ANY empirical grounding/evidence for The Universe's existence?

If not, then so be it.
If yes, then great.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Age wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 1:59 pm
What are those things, which YOU are 100% certain about, that exist?
Surely I don't need to enumerate each and every thing and give it a name?

What is that thing which exists on the corner of your 4th toe's nail?
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 1:59 pm
But this also, as I said before, says nothing whatsoever, especially as I see this is an invalid and unsound argument.
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 1:59 pm
Well we do NOT have to worry about that. To me the argument is neither sound nor valid.
Sure, but a few days ago we established that you are wrong. So why should we care about what you think?
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 1:59 pm
Now, back to the start: Could any thing existing provide, to you, ANY empirical grounding/evidence for The Universe's existence?
Sure. The same thing that convinces me an apple exists can convince me the universe exists.

It has measurable consequences.

If I eat an apple it had taste so it has a chemical composition.
If I pick it up it had weight so it has mass.
It has color e.g it reflects light.
I can draw a distinction between the taste of an apple and a pear.
At the simplest of tests - I can see it with my own eyes.

Can you even show me 'the universe'? Can you even tell me what distinguishable properties it has? What is it like and what is it different from?

Worst of all you can't even tell the difference between the universe and god!
P1. ALL-THERE-IS is God, Itself.
P2. If some thing exists, then
C. God exists.

Age
Posts: 4707
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 4:29 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 1:59 pm
What are those things, which YOU are 100% certain about, that exist?
Surely I don't need to enumerate each and every thing and give it a name?
No you do NOT have to. Just name one will do.
Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 4:29 pm
What is that thing which exists on the corner of your 4th toe's nail?
I do NOT know what you are talking about. You are the one who was asked the question about what you KNOW, for sure, which you are 100% CERTAIN exists.
Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 4:29 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 1:59 pm
But this also, as I said before, says nothing whatsoever, especially as I see this is an invalid and unsound argument.
But you have twisted my so called "argument" around so much that what you are assuming and saying it says is completely incorrect.
Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 4:29 pm
Age wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 1:59 pm
Well we do NOT have to worry about that. To me the argument is neither sound nor valid.
Sure, but a few days ago we established that you are wrong. So why should we care about what you think?
Is your memory gone or is there some thing else wrong with you. If you can NOT remember, it was NOT "we" who established that. 'You' established that.
Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 4:29 pm
quote=Age post_id=391812 time=1547989173 user_id=16237]
Now, back to the start: Could any thing existing provide, to you, ANY empirical grounding/evidence for The Universe's existence?
Sure. The same thing that convinces me an apple exists can convince me the universe exists.[/quote]

Great. Now that could help the one that you gave the challenge to.
Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 4:29 pm
It has measurable consequences.

If I eat an apple it had taste so it has a chemical composition.
If I pick it up it had weight so it has mass.
It has color e.g it reflects light.
I can draw a distinction between the taste of an apple and a pear.
At the simplest of tests - I can see it with my own eyes.

Can you even show me 'the universe'? Can you even tell me what distinguishable properties it has? What is it like and what is it different from?

Can you even recognize and SEE when you make up these ridiculous of ASSUMPTIONS?

Besides how distorted this thinking is to just make assumptions based on nothing more than your past experiences, making ASSUMPTIONS that are so closed and ridiculous is even on a more demented level.
Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 4:29 pm
Worst of all you can't even tell the difference between the universe and god!

There you go again, making up your own assumptions, asking questions based on those assumptions, and most amusingly answering your own questions with your own already concluded answers, which by the way are completely and utterly WRONG, once again.
Logik wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 4:29 pm
P1. ALL-THERE-IS is God, Itself.
P2. If some thing exists, then
C. God exists.
Lol

Your ability to continually dismiss my Truly OPEN clarifying questions completely, as though they did not even exist, twist things around in your own thoughts, and head off down some completely absurd and off topic track all on your own so quickly truly makes laugh.

Just inform me when you are ready and truly want to get back to the issue at hand.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4192
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Age wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 8:00 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 7:40 am
I have already proven why you have the wrong view of reality when you claimed you do not have any beliefs and imply you are not a 'human being'.
WHY is when I did what I did, supposedly, having the "wrong view of reality"? And, HOW did you, supposedly, already prove that I have the "wrong view of reality"?
I have already stated my point above, i.e.

"I have already proven why you have the wrong view of reality when you claimed you do not have any beliefs and imply you are not a 'human being'."

I have argued why humans cannot exists without any beliefs.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 7:40 am
I have asked you to provide links to whoever has the same thoughts as yours and you are unable to do so.
Of course I am unable to do so. I have yet to find another with the same thoughts.

But just because I can NOT yet find another with the same thoughts does NOT prove that My views are wrong, nor perverted, nor any thing else for that matter.

Did the first person, who was explaining that the earth actually revolves around the sun, who obviously also could NOT provide any "links" to any other person with the same thoughts as theirs, have the "wrong view of reality", and/or "perverted views"?

From all accounts if you existed in those days you would have been one of the first ones calling that person's "views of reality" WRONG, and/or even maybe "perverted views".
First person??? not in this more 'enlightened' current age.
You should have at least a hypothesis of your claim of possibility.
Note even Einstein had to stand on giant shoulders to present his hypothesis.

Your claim is no different from the schizo who claimed the gnomes in his garden exist as living entities because he had a direct conversation with them.

I have argued all over, thoughts like yours, if not mentally sick, are driven and triggered by some sort of desperate existential psychology within your psyche.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 5:24 am
I have argued why humans cannot exists without any beliefs.
But if you were paying close attention, your disagreement was not over the nature of beliefs.
Your entire disagreement was over what to call this mental phenomenon commonly called 'beliefs'.

Age chooses to call his beliefs 'knowledge'.

And as all theism goes - it's a discussion over language, not substance.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 5:24 am
Your claim is no different from the schizo who claimed the gnomes in his garden exist as living entities because he had a direct conversation with them.
But the gnomes in my garden do exist? Would you like some photos?

Maybe he was mistaken about the 'conversation'. I doubt it was more than a monologue.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 5:24 am
I have argued all over, thoughts like yours, if not mentally sick, are driven and triggered by some sort of desperate existential psychology within your psyche.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4192
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Logik wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:46 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 5:24 am
Your claim is no different from the schizo who claimed the gnomes in his garden exist as living entities because he had a direct conversation with them.
But the gnomes in my garden do exist? Would you like some photos?

Maybe he was mistaken about the 'conversation'. I doubt it was more than a monologue.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 5:24 am
I have argued all over, thoughts like yours, if not mentally sick, are driven and triggered by some sort of desperate existential psychology within your psyche.
This is why you have psychopathic tendencies, i.e. the inability to step into the mind of others.
What is critical here is, to the schizo and in his mind, the gnomes he had a conversation are really real living entities.
There are schizos where the entities they perceived in their mind are so real, the schizos would obey their command to kill people.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:36 am
This is why you have psychopathic tendencies, i.e. the inability to step into the mind of others.
Are you sure you are talking about me? It's precisely because I can see past the language games is why I can step into the minds of others...

It's precisely because I can step into the minds of others is why I am an empath.
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Mon Jan 21, 2019 8:36 am
What is critical here is, to the schizo and in his mind, the gnomes he had a conversation are really real living entities.
There are schizos where the entities they perceived in their mind are so real, the schizos would obey their command to kill people.
Sure. Because if you obey garden gnomes who command you to kill then you have mental health issues.
But if you obey real people who command you to kill, then there's no problem.

I think your analysis is somewhat incomplete.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests